Previous research on stereotyping has focused on perceptions of and negative consequences for individuals who activate stereotypes based on their membership in one stigmatized group. In contrast, relatively little research has examined stereotyping following categorization of targets into more than one stigmatized group. This dissertation focuses on perceptions of individuals who activate more than one set of stereotypes. In particular, I focused on the combination of stereotypes associated with the older adult age group and the Black racial group - two stereotype sets which contain elements that directly contradict one another. To examine the interaction of these two sets of stereotypes, I examined perceptions of four types of targets: young Black men, young White men, old Black men, and old White men. In Chapter 1, I examine perceptions of anger and happiness on the faces of young and old Black and White men. These perceptions are examined among young (Study 1a) and old (Study 1b) perceivers. In Chapter 2, I attempt to bias these perceptions of facial emotion in line with race or age stereotypes using a categorization priming procedure. The final three studies examine more basic perceptions of these targets of interest. I examine current and projected trait-related perceptions of novel (Chapter 3) and famous (Chapter 4) young and old Black and White men at various points across the lifespan. Finally, in Chapter 5, I directly compare these four targets on a number of traits using a forced-choice comparison task for both current and projected ratings. Overall, the results of this dissertation suggest that race-based and age-based stereotypes combine via a process of selective inhibition. Specifically, old Black and White men are characterized according to the old age stereotypes which most strikingly contrast them against their younger counterparts. Compared with their corresponding young targets, this pattern results in relatively positive evaluations of older Black men, but relatively negative evaluations of older White men.

Biracial people are often stereotyped as cold and socially awkward. Two experiments assessed whether the racial context in which they are perceived influences the application of these stereotypes. Participants read about a Black/White student who chose or was assigned a White, Black or Black/White roommate. Roommate race was manipulated via photographs (Experiment 1), or written description (Experiment 2). When photos were provided, roommate race, not the relationship, influenced target evaluations. The biracial target with a White roommate was viewed the least positively and as least similar to participants, implying his minority status was highlighted by his roommate’s race. The written description produced only relationship effects. When the target chose his roommate he was evaluated as warmer, more competent and with more positive regard than when he was assigned a roommate. The results suggest that visual vs. narrative racial contexts produce divergent evaluations of biracial people.

This paper investigates how belief, social power, and ideology work together to create the subjectivities and social structures that guide our behaviour. Phenomena such as cognitive shortcuts, memory, bias, empathy, and dissonance are used to trace the effects of power and ideology on social construction and role-taking behaviour. Research on mass opinion in the United States is then used to identify the effects of information and salience on construction. Different conceptions of ideology and interest, drawn from the work of Hume, Marx, Gramsci, Althusser, Foucault, and others were referenced to explore the larger social dynamics of ideas and structures. Academic, ethical, and democratic implications are investigated at different points. The paper concludes by connecting parenting style to moral development in order to find strategies for resisting the tendency towards institutional behaviour.

In previous research, measurement of deontological and utilitarian beliefs relied on responses to classic moral dilemmas. While use of these dilemmas has proven fruitful they are fraught with potential confounds. This thesis describes the construction and validation of the Consequentialist scale, a tool designed to directly measure the endorsement of both utilitarian and deontological beliefs. The Consequentialist scale was tested against variables previously associated with moral judgments, namely emotional reactivity, Machiavellianism, intrinsic religiosity, and political conservatism. Results indicate that the Consequentialist scale provides added explanatory power that helps to elucidate cornerstone processes involved in moral judgments.

This paper investigates how belief, social power, and ideology work together to create the subjectivities and social structures that guide our behaviour. Phenomena such as cognitive shortcuts, memory, bias, empathy, and dissonance are used to trace the effects of power and ideology on social construction and role-taking behaviour. Research on mass opinion in the United States is then used to identify the effects of information and salience on construction. Different conceptions of ideology and interest, drawn from the work of Hume, Marx, Gramsci, Althusser, Foucault, and others were referenced to explore the larger social dynamics of ideas and structures. Academic, ethical, and democratic implications are investigated at different points. The paper concludes by connecting parenting style to moral development in order to find strategies for resisting the tendency towards institutional behaviour.

In previous research, measurement of deontological and utilitarian beliefs relied on responses to classic moral dilemmas. While use of these dilemmas has proven fruitful they are fraught with potential confounds. This thesis describes the construction and validation of the Consequentialist scale, a tool designed to directly measure the endorsement of both utilitarian and deontological beliefs. The Consequentialist scale was tested against variables previously associated with moral judgments, namely emotional reactivity, Machiavellianism, intrinsic religiosity, and political conservatism. Results indicate that the Consequentialist scale provides added explanatory power that helps to elucidate cornerstone processes involved in moral judgments.

A series of five studies examined how praise and reproach feedback influenced participants' pro-environmental inclinations. Though past research has shown that praise feedback is a more effective and longer-lasting source of motivation than reproach feedback, popular pro-environmental communications campaigns nevertheless largely attempt to increase pro-environmentalism by reproaching the inadequacy of pro-environmental awareness and action among members of the public. This investigation set out to determine which approach is best: a slap on the wrist or a pat on the back. First, studies evaluated the effects of praise and reproach feedback that was conveyed in the general fashion that is typically adopted in public pro-environmental campaigns. Participants who experienced such general, omnibus feedback did not show greater pro-environmental inclinations after receiving either praise or reproach. Instead, this form of feedback resulted in a lower willingness to identify with pro-environmental issues whenever participants were reproached for their pro-environmental performance. When feedback was formatted to be more behavior-specific, the impact of feedback on pro-environmental inclinations depended upon whether praise and reproach feedback was conveyed in gain-framed (i.e., focusing on savings) or loss-framed (i.e., focusing on waste) terms. When gain-framed terms were used, both participants who received praise and those who received reproach had greater pro-environmental behavioural intentions and support for environmental preservation efforts than those who received feedback framed in the loss-framed terms that are typically favored by popular communications. Overall, my findings indicate the need for pro-environmental advocates to adopt more behaviour-specific and gain-framed forms of feedback in order to have a meaningful positive impact upon individuals' pro-environmental inclinations.

A series of five studies examined how praise and reproach feedback influenced participants' pro-environmental inclinations. Though past research has shown that praise feedback is a more effective and longer-lasting source of motivation than reproach feedback, popular pro-environmental communications campaigns nevertheless largely attempt to increase pro-environmentalism by reproaching the inadequacy of pro-environmental awareness and action among members of the public. This investigation set out to determine which approach is best: a slap on the wrist or a pat on the back. First, studies evaluated the effects of praise and reproach feedback that was conveyed in the general fashion that is typically adopted in public pro-environmental campaigns. Participants who experienced such general, omnibus feedback did not show greater pro-environmental inclinations after receiving either praise or reproach. Instead, this form of feedback resulted in a lower willingness to identify with pro-environmental issues whenever participants were reproached for their pro-environmental performance. When feedback was formatted to be more behavior-specific, the impact of feedback on pro-environmental inclinations depended upon whether praise and reproach feedback was conveyed in gain-framed (i.e., focusing on savings) or loss-framed (i.e., focusing on waste) terms. When gain-framed terms were used, both participants who received praise and those who received reproach had greater pro-environmental behavioural intentions and support for environmental preservation efforts than those who received feedback framed in the loss-framed terms that are typically favored by popular communications. Overall, my findings indicate the need for pro-environmental advocates to adopt more behaviour-specific and gain-framed forms of feedback in order to have a meaningful positive impact upon individuals' pro-environmental inclinations.

The aim of the present research was to show that collective rituals have the potential to promote not only ingroup favoritism but also outgroup discrimination. In two studies, I used a minimal group setup and had participants engage in a lab-created ritual over the course of seven days. Afterwards, participants came into the lab and performed the actions in their ‘minimal’ group. In Study 1, I found that participants who performed the ad-hoc ritual distrusted outgroup members significantly more than did the control participants. Study 2 extended these findings by looking at ritual intensity as a factor of intergroup bias. Results showed, again, that participants in the two experimental conditions – elaborate and simple ritual – showed greater outgroup discrimination compared to the control, though the data showed no difference in biases between the two experimental conditions. I also found that tolerance to ambiguity moderated the effect of condition on intergroup bias.

The present research examined how daily experiences of intergroup contact through social interaction (direct contact) and exposure to outgroups in media (media contact) facilitate improvements in intergroup attitudes. A longitudinal diary study was conducted whereby participants indicated the amount of direct contact and media contact they had each day, as well as their intergroup attitudes. Results indicated that direct contact and media contact both independently predicted improvements in intergroup attitudes. For direct contact, but not media contact, this relationship was moderated by the perceived negativity of the contact. Time-lagged analyses indicated that direct contact on a given day predicted improved intergroup attitudes on a subsequent day above and beyond direct contact on that day, but that media contact has little or no residual impact. This suggests that although media contact and direct contact may both be effective at promoting more positive intergroup attitudes, direct contact may have a more lasting impact.